"unsafe" is a loaded term

in your fish analogy, you eat mecury directly, but wont eat fish that might have mercury.

the communicable disease is itself quite dangerous

I think you missed the point. Granted the disease is dangerous, but what if the cure is worse ? If we don't know this is true, we ought to assume the risk outweighs the benefits until PROVEN otherwise- that is the precautionary principle. As an analogy take Vioxx, a headache remedy that caused thousands of heart attacks. Merck the manufacturer started an advertising campaign for the drug AFTER the learned it was killing people - they were ultimately fined 4.5 billion.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp048286

The docket shows us that pharmaceutical companies are serial felons who have paid some of the largest fines in history for lying about their products. It is prudent to be skeptical until proven otherwise.

	▲	braincat31415 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I agree. Pfizer settled more than a few cases. When talking about a low probability but catastrophic event, the burden lies on the side of the vaccine manufacturer and a mandating agency (and not on the side of the consumer) to prove beyond any doubt that the treatment is safe. I doubt Pfizer has met that bar. Edit: To all the pro-Pfizer downvoters, feel free to take some Zantac. You have learned nothing.